Modern Lens for an Anniversary Speed Graphic

[wlewisiii]

Hello all,

I've done some research on this topic already, I'm curious as to some opinions as well. I have recently gotten started in 4x5 with a 1943 Anniversary model Speed Graphic and it's 127mm/4.7 uncoated Ektar in a #2 Kodak Supermatic shutter. This lens/shutter combination is not terrible by any means, but it does have it's limitations.

So I'm pondering the purchase of something of a bit more recent vintage. This is not something I'll be doing tomorrow - if nothing else my budget is far too limited at this point. However, if I can have an idea or two to keep in mind when perusing Ebay, then when a lucky deal (badly named or mis-categorized) pops up I can make a try for it.

My interests are primarily landscape and environmental portraitures.

I'm thinking along the lines of a lens in the 135mm to 150mm range with a synchronized shutter. What are good inexpensive options in this category to you folks here?

Or one other option I have considered is one of the 150/265 convertables I've seen out there. I do understand that there are some heavy compromises in the long length, but would it still be usable for landscapes?

Thank you for your ideas.

William

[jake]

I have been sort of digging around here myself, and I find all the lenses confusing. But I have on recommendation from a LF photographer the 150/5.6 Sironar N (Rodenstock I believe) & the Nikon and the Fujinon in that same configuration. These are all $200 - 300 lenses. The other part of that suggestion was to get a 150 or 210 as my next lens.

On the other hand, buying lenses in LF seems to be more lenient than other formats. I mean, the Ektars & Optars that come on the Graphics are very competent but they aren't amazing. However, you can squeeze a really nice image out of them. And the same photographer above has a lovely 300mm lens with a deep scratch in the surface he merely filled with black india ink & you never see it on his negatives. In 35mm, you would have to throw a lens like that away. In other words, don't dismiss heavily used lenses at cheap prices.

Actually there is an Ektar 210/6.3 that is supposed to be nifty enough to have a bit of a cult following. Watch for that too maybe. And plenty of people swear by the Caltars sold by Calumet as better than average inexpensive lenses. At one time, I think they were made by Rodenstock. But I would get a 150 and skip the 135.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Look for a good deal on an Ektar 203/7.7 if you want a good lens for your Speed Graphic. They seem to go for 100 to 200 bucks on eBay. There are resolution tests on the web that show just how good this lens is. And, it's a classic. BTW, the Ektar 127/4.7 was designed for 3X4 cameras. The press photographers liked to put them on their 4X5 because it's a slightly wide angle and the shutter was more reliable. The associated corner softness on 4X5 didn't matter much for newspaper reproduction. Still a high quality lens.

[wlewisiii]

Thank you gentlemen. Those are the kinds of thoughts I'd hoped to get posted. I'll keep my eyes open for what the two of you suggest.

Willam

[P C Headland]

You could also look at the Caltar lenses, these are quite good value.

Other more modern good value lenses are the Yamasaki (?) Congo lenses.  I picked up a 180mm for around $100 new in box with Seikosha shutter.  I've just mounted that on my MPP Micro Press.

Paul

[Glenn Thoreson]

I forgot to mention this: If your 127 Ektar appears uncoated, it's only coated on the inner surfaces. I guess because of the softness of Kodak's early coatings, the decided not to risk coating the outer surfaces.

[sandeha]

It's such a personal thing.  I started with a 127mm Wollensak (pretty much the same as the Ektar) and then bought a s/h 210 Caltar II-E from B&H.  (That's the lighter weight version made by Rodenstock.)  Later I got an old 90mm Angulon.  I don't recall the exact limitations of your bellows, so this may not apply at all, but for me the 210 and the 90 seem like the perfect duo.  If you do go for a mid-range length like 150, the Caltar should be excellent.  

The issue with convertibles is that they are a compromise; the best of them may be sharp, but not quite crisp.

[wlewisiii]

Hmm. The Congo lenses look interesting, but I'm not having much luck finding user experiances with them via google. Anyone have anything to share about these new manufactured Tessars?

William

[Glenn Thoreson]

I haven't used one but this is what I've read from other users: Yamasaki seemed to have on and off quality control issues. When the lens is good, it's reputed to be very good. I don't think getting a stinker would be likely but if I were to buy one, especially used, I would be very clear on any right of return, just in case. I think the QC thing may be why these were never wildly popular. Caltar is a good choice. If you can find a 210 f/9 Computar cheap, grab it. You would likely have to have that one mounted in a shutter, but it's a good lens. A good old Symmar is also a good choice.

[OleTj]

I have used a lot of 150mm lenses - and I still use a lot of 150mm lenses. The only one I have sold was a 150/5.6 Symmar convertible, which I sold because I didn't need it.

The main difference is between coated and uncoated. Single- or multicoated doesn't really matter at all. An old uncoated Rodenstock Eurynar  with a chip in the front element produced nice sharp images with low contrast - and then I got my hands on another one which someone had had coated. Nice!

At f:22 or so there is no big difference. Heliar, Eurynar, Skopar, Tessar, Symmar, Xenar or Serrac all look similar; the only lens I have that stands out is an Apo-Lanthar. At f:32 there is no difference that I can see between coated lenses.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Nice to hear about the Eurynar. I have a 135mm with perfect glass in a deadly accurate dial set Compur. I've never used it. Shame on me!

[wlewisiii]

Given that DOF gets trickier as you get into longer focal lengths and larger format negatives, does anyone here do much with their lenses opened up much? I get curious as to what a 150/4.7 could actually do at, say, f5.6 or f8 or there abouts as most of the time (especially since the only film I have is some Tmax-400) I tend to be using mine in the F22 - 32 range.

I should admit right now to something of a fetish for Tessars, perhaps even especially opened up, certainly in MF, so my ideas of what looks good may not match yours... :twisted:

Thanks,

William

[sandeha]

This shot was wide open at f4.5 - a 135mm Zeiss Tessar (around 1930) on 4x5" HP5+.



The combination of selective focus and f-stop gives me a 'warm and furry' feeling like nothing else in photography.  Landscape and architecture apart, it's the real fuel to my love of LF.  

With some lenses I've found that the max f-stop is too cruddy, but one stop down is fine.  If this sort of wide-open shooting appeals to you William, then go for it.

[OleTj]

Here's another wide-open shot.

Schneider Xenar 300mm f:4.5 wide open, with movements, on 5x7" film.

BTW the camera was a classic - a 5x7" Linhof Technika III.

[P C Headland]

This shot was taken with a 135mm f4.5 uncoated tessar that came with my MPP Micro Press.

Now, I hadn't intended to shoot it wide open, it's just that, well, erm, I forgot to stop it down after focusing  :?